EVALUATE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN KIDNEY STONE SURFACE AREA AND THE DEGREE OF RENAL PELVIS DILATATION ON MULTI-SLICE COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY WITH PERCUTANEOUS NEPHROLITHOTRIPSY TIME

Đình Âu Hoàng, Thị Bích Nguyệt Thân, Quốc Hòa Trần

Main Article Content

Abstract

Purposes: The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between kidney stone surface area on multi-slices computed tomography and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) time. Material and methods: Descriptive study at Hanoi Medical University Hospital from July 2022 to July 2023 on 71 patients with kidney stones undergoing PCNL and multi-slices CT scans before PCNL and checked the stone cleanliness after PCNL. The stone surface area was calculated for each patient according to the formula S=π/4 x length x width of stone and classified into levels  <400 mm2, from 400-799 mm2, from 800 -1599 mm2 and >1600 mm2 and then compared with PCNL time to determine the relationship between these two factors. Results: Mean age was 53.8±12.3. Male/female ratio was 1.54. The proportion of stones with surface area <400 mm2 (=21), from 400-799 mm2 (n=30), from 800 -1599 mm2 (n=14) and >1600 mm2 (n=6) were 29.6%, 42.3% 19.7% and 8.5% respectively and corresponded to PCNL time (in minutes) of 50.8±12.6, 62.7±25.0, 83.3±42.4 and 112.5±41.4. There was a statistically significant difference (p=0.003) of PCNL time between the different stone surface area groups. The proportion of patients with nondilated (n=2), mildly dilated (n=43), moderately dilated (n=21) and severely dilated (n=5) renal pelvises was 2.8%; 60.6%; 29.6% and 7%, respectively. The PCN lithotripsy time (in minutes) of the non-dilated or slightly dilated renal pelvis group and the moderately dilated or severely dilated group were 59.6±26.7 and 81.8±38.4, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference (p=0.006) in PCNL time between these two groups. Conclusion: Kidney stone surface area and the degree of renal pelvic dilatation was associated with PCNL time with p < 0.05. Evaluation of these two parameters played an important role for the prediction of PCNL success

Article Details

References

1. Viljoen A, Chaudhry R, Bycroft J. Renal stones. Ann Clin Biochem. 2019;56(1):15-27. doi:10.1177/0004563218781672.
2. Bùi Văn Lệnh. Chẩn Đoán Hình Ảnh Bộ Máy Tiết Niệu. Nhà xuất bản y học; 2011.
3. Hoàng Long. In: Bài Giảng Bệnh Học Ngoại Khoa. 2013:203-204.
4. Smith RC, Rosenfield AT, Choe KA, et al. Acute flank pain: comparison of non-contrast-enhanced CT and intravenous urography. Radiology. 1995;194(3):789-794. doi:10.1148/ radiology.194.3.7862980
5. Ujwal Kumar et al. STONE score versus Guy's Stone Score - prospective comparative evaluation for success rate and complications in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urol Ann. 2018 Jan-Mar; 10(1): 76–81.
6. Lai WH, Jou YC, Cheng MC, et al. Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Experience of 1000 cases at a single institute. Urological Science. 2017;28(1):23-26.
7. Liu Y, Chen Y, Liao B, et al. Epidemiology of urolithiasis in Asia. Asian J Urol. 2018;5(4):205-214. doi: 10.1016/j.ajur.2018.08.007
8. Ozgor F, Kucuktopcu O, Sarılar O, et al. Does previous open renal surgery or percutaneous nephrolithotomy affect the outcomes and complications of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urolithiasis. 2015; 43(6):541-547. doi:10.1007/ s00240-015-0798-9.
9. Bartoletti R, Cai T, Mondaini N, et al. Epidemiology and risk factors in urolithiasis. Urol Int. 2007;79 Suppl 1:3-7. doi:10.1159/000104434
10. Segura JW, Patterson DE, LeRoy AJ, et al. Percutaneous removal of kidney stones: review of 1,000 cases. J Urol. 1985;134(6):1077-1081.